I've also found anti-infantry stuff to be worthless since everything kills infantry in one or two shots anyway. You've lost a bunch of units before you can even react. So as soon as you catch sight, everything fires off a one hit kill sniper shot or anti-tank missile. As soon as you catch sight of the enemy, you're in range and every anti-vehicle weapon is high damage, long reload shots. Act of War is just too fast for it's own good. Otherwise, I'd have to say Generals was smoother. Airstrikes are probably handled a little better in Act of War, and the campaign cutscenes were better. I think Generals was GENERALly the overall better game. I don't have C&C Generals ranked on my website, but if you are interested, here is my page that compares Act of War and C&C 3. Sent a bunch of tanks to an area, went back to manage my base, went back to find all my tanks taken out by a few hidden AT infantry. I have not played Generals multiplayer, but the few games of Act of War online was a lot of fun. Then High Treason's campaign was way too difficult on the easiest setting. Act of War: Direct Action's campaign was way too easy on the highest difficulty. One thing I did like about Generals over Act of War is the balanced difficulty of the single-player campaign. Gives a very good reason to try and rescue that chopper pilot that crashed on the front lines. Infantry must be used to capture other infantry units to be POWs which is an important source of income for Act of War. Infantry plays a very important role in Act of War. This I would say is on par with Generals. There are three very different sides in Act of War. Not as fast as Dawn of War, but still fast. I find that my troops tend to die very quickly in Act of War. I cannot remember if Generals had FMVs, but I reckon Act of War's FMVs are better than C&C3 Tiberium Wars.Īct of War plays much faster than C&C Generals as I remember it. High Treason's story was good, but not as good as Direct Action's.įMVs in Act of War is great. Act of War still ranks top on my website for having the best story out of all RTSs I have played. One difference though, where Rainbow Six the book's story is better than the game's story, for Act of War, the game's story is far better than the actual book of the same name. The same way how Rainbow Six had Tom Clancy to help write the story for the game, Act of War: Direct Action had Dale Brown to help with the story.
ACT OF WAR DIRECT ACTION TORRENT DOWNLOAD PLUS
The single-player story of Act of War: Direct Action is a very big plus point. Heavily armed exoskeletons, stealth tanks and severely short sighted helicopters to name a few. There are also unrealistic things about Act of War. Basically the game's units perform how I would expect them to in real life, but take this with a grain of salt as all my knowledge comes from books movies and other games.
Bradley can carry few troops with moderate fire power. The Tunguska AAA not only takes down aircraft, but also works well against infantry. Infantry can ambush behind terrain to do more damage.
They are fast and ram infantry easily, but at the same time one hit by a rocket and BOOM. When I say higher level of realism, I mean you have Fat-vees which perform very much like humvees. I cannot remember much about C&C Generals, but off the top of my head I would say Act of War is more realistic than Generals, has a better story and more action oriented FMVs.